+menu-


  • Category Archives When is a Taking a Taking?
  • WA DOE $50 Comment Recording Fee?

    WA DOE $50 Public Comment Recording Fee?

    1. Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections. 
    2. All letters of protest will become public record. 
    3. Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable. 
    4. Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611,
    5. within 30 days from June 20, and June 30, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————

    I AM FREELY PROTESTING AND OBJECTING TO THIS $50.00 DOE FEE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT,  AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD,  ON MY WEBSITE.

    ————————————————————-

    TAKE NOTICE STEVENS COUNTY WE MUST  PROTEST OR OBJECT WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    ———————————

    TAKE NOTICE GRANT COUNTY WE  MUST PROTEST OR OBJECT  WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017.

    ————————————————————-

    I GOT MY  PUBLIC NOTICE IN A PRIVATE EMAIL ON TUES JULY 11, 2017

    The email said,  So whatever we can pull together ASAP will be helpful. 

    I SUGGEST WE START HERE….

    EMAIL YOUR, OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS AND PROTESTS  REGARDING THE WA STATE DOE WATER RULERS NEW $50 COMMENT RECORDING FEE,  TAKE NOTICE TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND CITY.

    INDEED,  EMAIL  OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS  AND PROTESTS  SENT TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, ARE LEGALLY RECORDED DOCUMENTATION AND THEY ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. 

    ————————————————————————————

    THIS DOE $50.00 FEE  TO PROTEST OR OBJECTION AND  TO RECORD PUBLIC COMMENT UNDER DOE WATER APPLICATION NO. G3-30736 IS NOT SOMETHING NEW.

     IT’S JUST NEW TO VOTING TAXPAYING CITIZEN WATER USERS.

    ———————————————————————

    HOW WA STATE DUE PROCESS ON PUBLIC NOTIFICATION WORKS, OR NOT?

    Somebody found something, and read something in  the Chewelah Independent, a newspaper in Stevens County WA on June 22nd 2017 that was placed by the Dept. of Ecology. 

    Indeed, I got my PUBLIC NOTICE in a private email on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:57 PM

    OBJECTIONS OR PROTESTS COMMENTS WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    WORD GETS AROUND IN CYBERSPACE (eventually)

    I AM FREELY PROTESTING AND OBJECTING TO THIS $50.00 DOE FEE ON PUBLIC COMMENT MY WEBSITE.

     —– Original Message —–

    From: XXX

    To: XXX

    Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:57 PM

    Subject: SCPRG Update

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, within 30 days from June 20, and June 30, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————-

    WA State DOE From TAXATION TO FEE-DOM

    ——————————————————————————-

    AS IT STOOD ON OCT 26, 2013 , AND AS IT STANDS JULY 12, 2017

    ————————————————————————- 

    OCT 26, 2013 IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY MORE TAXES?

    WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM US?

    The bottom line
    REMEMBER A “FEE” IS NOT A TAX
    AND, A TOLL IS JUST A FEE
    AND, A SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A CHARGE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A FARE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    AND, A DOE $50.00 RECORDING FEE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    OBJECTIONS OR COMMENTS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A $50 RECORDING FEE PAYABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, CASHIERING UNIT, P.O. BOX 47611, OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7611, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————–

    STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OFFICE OF COLUMBIA RIVER YAKIMA, WA. NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS TAKE NOTICE: 

    DOE TAKE WATER TAKE NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————–

    GRANT COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF GROUNDWATER CERTIFICATE 399A(A)

    DOE TAKE WATER TAKE NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017.

    Protests must be accompanied by a fifty dollar ($50.00) recording fee and filed with the Cashiering Section, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, Washington 98504-7611 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017. #06029/86342 Pub: June 13 & 20, 2017

    —————————————————————————

    STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OFFICE OF COLUMBIA RIVER YAKIMA, WA

    NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS TAKE NOTICE:  That STEVENS COUNTY of Colville, WA, on February 11, 2015, under Application No. G3-30736 applied to appropriate public waters, subject to existing rights, from multiple wells in the amount of 3,350 gallons per minute for continuous multiple domestic and industrial supply.

    That source of the proposed appropriation is located with the Colville River Water Resource Inventory Area, Stevens County, Washington.

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, within 30 days from June 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————

    GRANT COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF GROUNDWATER CERTIFICATE 399A(A) TAKE NOTICE: Central Terminals, LLC of Moses Lake has made an APPLICATION FOR CHANGE/TRANSFER of Water Right to add two (2) additional points of withdrawal (POW), for Groundwater Certificate 399A(A). The Board has accepted the applicaiton for active Board review by assigning its number of GRAN-16-10. The Department of Ecology has assigned tracking number CG3-*01104C(A)@2 to this application. That Ground Water Certificate 399A(A) with a priority date of April 18, 1949 has current authorization for 800.0 gallons per minute, 296.1 acre-feet per year, for Continuous Industrial use.

    The current authorized point of withdrawal is located within the NW1/4SW1/4 Section 20, T19N., R29E., W.M., The proposed additional points of withdrawal will be one (1) existing well located within the NW1/4SE1/4 of section 20, T19N., R29E. W.M., and one (1) new well located within the NE1/4NE/4 of Section 29, T19N, R29E. W.M.

    Any interested party may submit comments, objections, and other information to the Board regarding this application. The comments and information may be submitted in writing or verbally at any public meeting of the Board held to discuss or decide on the application. Additionally, the Board will consider written comments or information provided within thirty (30) days from the last date of publication of this notice, said written comments or information to be provided to its office located at 2145 Basin Street SW, Ephrata, WA 98823. Any protests or objections to the approval of this application may be filed with the Department of Ecology and must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.

     Protests must be accompanied by a fifty dollar ($50.00) recording fee and filed with the Cashiering Section, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, Washington 98504-7611 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017. #06029/86342 PUB: JUNE 13 & 20, 2017

    ————————————————————————-

    WA State taxes TAXATION from our elected representative

    DOE FEE INCREASES DO NOT HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

    AS IT STOOD ON OCT 26, 2013 , AND AS IT STANDS JULY 12, 2017

    ELECTIONS DO CREATE  OUR LEGISLATORS’

    ————————————————————————- 

    Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feefie-foefum. THERE’S LITTLE REASON EVER TO USE IT? This entry was posted in By Hook or By Crook, …

     OCT 26, 2013 IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY MORE TAXES?

    WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM US?

    The bottom line
    REMEMBER A “FEE” IS NOT A TAX
    AND, A TOLL IS JUST A FEE
    AND, A SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A CHARGE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A FARE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    AND, A DOE $50.00 RECORDING FEE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    WA STATE FROM TAXATION TO DOE FEE-DOM

    —————————————————————————————-

    Clallam County citizens  sent in over a thousand objections  on The DOE Dungeness Water Rule and the DOE sent us 500 pages of too bad so sad.

    —————————————————————

    VENGEANCE IS MINE SAITH THE WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE)

    —————————————————————————–

    VENGEANCE IS MINE SAITH WA STATE VOTERS COME ELECTION TIME


  • June 20, 2017 Clallam County SMP Update

    My public comment

    Vested Clallam County Citizens have been fearful of how the SMP Update will affect their private property use since Jan 26, 2011.

    INDEED, THIS IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING SHORE LANDS, WETLANDS, ANIMALS OR RIVERS. THIS IS ABOUT CONTROLLING PEOPLE AND THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.  I WISH PEOPLE WOULD WAKE UP TO WHAT IS TAKING PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY, STATE AND COUNTY  WITH REGARDS TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING LAND AND IMPOSING HEAVY REGULATIONS ON ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    I received a phone call from a concerned (fearful) Clallam County citizen last night.

    “Pearl, have you read the new SMP Update Draft? Do you know how Steve Grey and (ESA Consultant) Margaret Clancy have changed it? Do you know what’s in it?”

    We talked for over an hour. My understanding of the most outrageous concerns.

    There shall be 200 foot setbacks based on a concocted 100 year plan?  Clallam County SMP Update Requirements prior to any permitted use of private shoreline property shall include, but not limited to,  up to $20,000.00 in …….

    Geotechnical Engineering

    www.whatisgeotech.org/

    IT INCLUDES, WITHOUT BEING LIMITED TO, the analysis, design and construction of foundations, slopes, retaining structures, embankments, roadways, tunnels, levees, wharves, landfills and other systems that are made of or are supported by soil or rock. Geotechnical Societies by Country.

    ———————————————————-

    The concerned citizen said, Pearl, what are you going to do about this? You have private shoreline property that will be seriously affected.

    IN CLALLAM COUNTY WA, THERE ARE 3300 VESTED SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY  OWNERS THAT SHALL BE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY THE OUTRAGEOUS RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY SMP UPDATE, I AM JUST ONE OF THEM.

    THE REAL QUESTION IS WHAT ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    THEY HAVE VOTERS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE AFFECTED BY THE SMP UPDATE, THAT FEEL VIOLATED BY THE RESTRICTED USE OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY IN CLALLAM COUNTY.

    ———————————————————————–

    INDEED, BUT EVEN MORE TO THE POINT, what business does the government have telling a man whether or not he can plow or not on his own land?  This is not about wetlands and animals or rivers.  This is about controlling people and their property.  I wish people would wake up to what is taking place in this country with regards to central government controlling land and imposing heavy regulations on private property.

    —————————————————————

    Farmer Faces $2.8 Million Fine for… Plowing His Field! – Freedom …

    freedomoutpost.com/farmer-faces-2-8-million-fine-for-plowing-his-field/

    May 26, 2017 – A California farmer is facing $2.8 million in fines for plowing his field and planting wheat without a permit. John Duarte of Duarte Nursery is …

    Tim BrownMay 26, 2017

    A California farmer is facing $2.8 million in fines for plowing his field and planting wheat without a permit.

    John Duarte of Duarte Nursery is David going up against Goliath, just like ranchers, farmers and natural health product makers.  His case could set a dangerous precedent that would require farmers to obtain expensive and time-consuming permits from the US Army of Corps Engineers before planting crops.

    “The case is the first time that we’re aware of that says you need to get a (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) permit to plow to grow crops,” said Anthony Francois, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation. “We’re not going to produce much food under those kinds of regulations.”

    However, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller sided with the Army Corps last June, in which the US Attorney’s Office is asking for $2.8 million in civil penalties.

    Why?  Who was harmed?  What real and actual crime took place?

    USA Today has the background of the story that began in 2012 when Mr. Duarte planted wheat on land that he bought with his own money, some 450 acres.

    Because the property has numerous swales and wetlands, Duarte hired a consulting firm to map out areas on the property that were not to be plowed because they were part of the drainage for Coyote and Oat creeks and were considered “waters of the United States.”

    Francois conceded that some of the wetlands were plowed but not significantly damaged. He said the ground was plowed to a depth of 4 to 7 inches.

    The Army Corps did not claim Duarte violated the Endangered Species Act by destroying fairy shrimp or their habitat, Francois said.

    This particular freshwater species is unique to California and southern Oregon and has been classified as a threatened species since 1994 because much of its wetlands in California’s Central Valley were converted to cropland or became urban.

    Duarte’s wheat was planted but not harvested because in February 2013 the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued orders to stop work at the site. The agencies claimed Duarte had violated the Clean Water Act by not obtaining a permit to discharge dredged or fill material into seasonal wetlands considered waters of the United States.

    Duarte sued the Army Corps and the state, alleging they violated his constitutional right of due process by issuing the cease and desist orders without a hearing. The U.S. Attorney’s Office counter-sued Duarte Nursery tto enforce the Clean Water Act violation.

    Farmers plowing their fields are specifically exempt from the Clean Water Act rules forbidding discharging material into U.S. waters, Francois said.

    The government claims that Duarte did not plow but rather used a ripper, which dug 10 inches into the soil and they allege that it disturbed portions of the property that included wetland areas.

    “Even under the farming exemption, a discharge of dredged or fill material incidental to the farming activities that impairs the flow of the waters of the United States still requires a permit because it changes the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters,” the U.S. attorney said in court filings.

    Francois claims the penalties are unfair because his client believed the plowing exemption allowed him to till the soil.

    “A plain reading of the rules says you don’t need a permit to do what he did,” Francois said. “How do you impose a multimillion penalty on someone for thinking the law says what it says?”

    Indeed, but even more to the point, what business does the government have telling a man whether or not he can plow or not on his own land?  This is not about wetlands and animals or rivers.  This is about controlling people and their property.  I wish people would wake up to what is taking place in this country with regards to central government controlling land and imposing heavy regulations on private property.

    ——————

    The bottom line…

    WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    Just saying, To Local Elected Representatives..

    Changes are taking place in WA DC.

    Don’t lock yourself up by imposing restricted use on Private Property that you can’t defend and uphold in a court of law.


  • 2012 SMP Issues Left on the Table

    June 9, 2017  My Updated Public Comment  CLALLAM COUNTY WA SMP

    Subject: SMP PUBLIC COMMENT JULY 14, 2012  ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES

    July 10, 2012 the 19 SMP Issues left on the table by the Clallam County SMP (citizens?) Advisory Committee.

    Two thirds or more of the SMP (citizens?) Advisory Committee VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT ARGUMENT, SUGGESTIONS OR COMMENT?

    INDEED, THE INTENT OF A PARTY CAN BE DETERMINED BY EXAMINING THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, AFTER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE NEGOTIATIONS, ANY PRACTICES THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THEMSELVES, USAGES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    ———————————————————–

    The 19 SMP Update unresolved issues left on the table, At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting, Against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    If any of you read this complete July 14, 2012 comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committee members that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County, prior to the 2017 final SMP Draft Proposal, being given to the Clallam County Planning Commission.

    July 10, 2012 The last remark Steve Gray made to me, nearly five years ago was “I just want to get this over with.” 

    ————————————————————

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    SMP Cumulative Impact on People

    Posted on November 18, 2014 10:35 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    This is my Clallam County SMP Public comment and objection

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————-

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) – New Revised SMP Draft (June 2017)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP
    Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 4:39 PM
    Subject: FW: Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) – New Revised SMP Draft (June 2017)

    Interested Parties,

    You are receiving this email because you are on the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update email notification list.  The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017). 

    An “INTERESTED PARTY SINCE JAN 26, 2011?” concerned, vested, voting, Clallam County private shoreline property owner and member of SMP Update (citizens) Advisory Committee.

    —– Original Message —–

    Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    THE REST OF THE STORY…….

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    From: pearl hewett

    to  zSMP

    Cc: several

    Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    Subject: SMP COMMENT #292 ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    This is my full comment on the SMP Advisory Committee

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Estate

    Concerned Member SMP Advisory Committee

    At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting

    Two thirds or more of the SMP Advisory Committee

    VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    The SMP Advisory Committee that  represent the 3300 Clallam County shoreline private property owners is approximately as follows.

    1/3 = 10 private interest groups

    1/3 = 10 paid government employees

    1/3 = 10 SMP Affected taxpaying private property owners (only 8 at this meeting)

    DOES THE MAKEUP OF THIS COMMITTEE EXPLAINS WHY?

    THEY VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY without argument, suggestions or comment?

    (1) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? The undecipherable table with the percentages, the 15% of whatever? It made no sense to me either? One vested citizen, could help with  his knowledge of what he thought it actually was/represented? It would be very helpful to members of the committee.

    The written text related to the undecipherable table below

    1. Minor new development Grading shall not exceed 500 cubic yards; and ii. Land disturbing activities shall not exceed 20,000 square feet, except that on parcels less than five (5) acres, land disturbing activities must not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the gross parcel size; and iii. The total cumulative footprint of all structures on a parcel must be less than 4,000 square feet; and iv. The total cumulative impervious surface area on the parcel must be less than ten (10) . All land disturbing activities must be located on slopes less than fifteen (15) percent; and vi. All land disturbing activities must comply with any critical area buffer and other protection standards established for parcels created by land division.

    ————————————————————————

    (2) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? NOT ADDRESSED

    The limited number of trained specialists,  Engineer’s  comment was in reference to the county SMP  requiring specialists, to perform the mitigation tests. If a property owner could even find one to do the testing? The time delay and cost would be prohibitive.

    ——————————————————————-

    (3) PRESENTED NOT DISCUSSED

    SMP Excessive restrictions on all forms of developments. I am extremely concerned about the additional restrictive requirements written into the SMP update for major development. They are counter- productive to the economic recovery of Clallam County, they restrict the ability of business and citizens to create employment opportunities in both Clallam County and Port Angeles. Why are the Dept. of Community Development and the planning biting off their own feet? Why are they creating these obsessive restrictions on all developments?

    The way Steve was talking it, with all the added bells and whistles, it was to make any form of mitigation for anything totally infeasible, creating a like it or lump it, situation for all development by business or private shoreline property owners.

    ———————————————————————

    (4) PRESENTED- DISCUSSED but NOT ADDRESSED

    The cumulative effect of setbacks SHORELINE, WETLAND and HABITAT   one citizen did a good job when he pointed out an example of the enormous  loss of private property use with the setbacks on Lake Pleasant, in conjunction with the yet undetermined, Clallam County DOE designated WETLANDS.

    ———————————————————————–

     (5) PRESENTED NOT ADDRESSED

    More additional HABITAT setbacks

    IT WAS IMPRESSIVE HOW SMOOTHLY MARGARET AND STEVE JUST ADDED ON THE ADDITIONAL HABITAT SETBACKS, BUT DID NOT MENTION ENDANGERED SPECIES.

    1. Rare, endangered, threatened and sensitive species means plant and animal species identified and listed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as being severely limited or threatened with extinction within their native ranges.
    2. Threatened species means a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future, as classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, or the federal Endangered Species Act.

    ————————————————————————-

     

    (6)  COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED

    1. Recording means the filing of a document(s) for recordation with the County auditor.

    ————————————————————————————

    (7) NO DISCUSSION OR RESOLUTION (not required by law)

    1. Restoration means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of fill, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions.

    ————————————————————————————

    (8) DOE DESIGNATED WETLANDS NOT IDENTIFIED OR INCORPORATED

    Wetlands have no boundaries, adjoining wetlands could restrict the use of your property.

    1. Wetlands means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created for non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands created as mitigation and wetland modified for approved land use activities shall be considered as regulated wetlands.

    PROHIBITED EXCEPTION DISCUSSED AND RESOLVED BY RCW

    Provisions for protection SHALL be included in SMP up date.

    1. Revetment means a sloped wall constructed of rip-rap or other suitable material placed on stream banks or other shorelines to retard bank erosion and minimize lateral stream movement.
    2. Rip-rap means dense, hard, angular rock free from cracks or other defects conductive to weathering often used for bulkheads, revetments or similar slope/bank stabilization purposes.

    ————————————————————————-

    (9) DISCUSSED UNDEFINED NO RESOLUTION [insert final date]

    3.1.1 Shoreline Environment Designations

    1. A shoreline environment designation has been assigned to each segment of the shoreline in accordance with this section. The designations are based on the following general factors:
    2. The ecological functions and processes that characterize the shoreline, together with the degree of human alteration as determined by the [insert final date] Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and subsequent technical analyses; and

    ——————————————————————

    (10) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

     EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. c. Hazard Tree Removal: Removal of a hazard tree may be allowed in the buffer when trimming is not sufficient to address the hazard. Where the hazard is not immediately apparent to the Administrator, the hazard tree determination SHALL be made after Administrator review of a report prepared by a qualified arborist or forester.

    ——————————————————————–

    (11) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. Invasive Species Management: Removing invasive, non-native shoreline vegetation listed on the Clallam County Noxious Weed List may be allowed in the buffer when otherwise consistent with this Program. The disturbed areas must be promptly revegetated using species native to western Washington. The Administrator SHALL require a vegetation management plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the invasive species removal. The vegetation management plan SHALL  identify and describe the location and extent of vegetation management. For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the vegetation management plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the vegetation management will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the invasive species management area SHALL be clearly defined on the site plan

    ———————————————————————–

    (12) NOT DISCUSSED – ADDRESSED OR RESOLVED

    Taking of Value of view property by limited 20% KEYHOLE view corridor. If 50% of the value of your shoreline property is for the view? Losing 80% the view value will affect the true and real value of your property

    4.2.4 Regulations – Shoreline Buffers

    . 3. Buffer Condition: Shoreline buffers shall be maintained in a predominantly well vegetated and undisturbed condition to ensure that the buffer provides desired buffer functions including shade, habitat, organic inputs, large woody debris, slope stability, water storage, biofiltration, contaminant removal, and fine sediment control. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area shall be vegetated with native trees and shrubs. The remaining twenty percent (20%), or at least fifteen (15) linear feet of the water frontage, whichever is greater, may be retained as lawn for active use.

    1. Allowed Uses and Buffer Modifications: The Administrator may allow limited clearing, thinning, and/or pruning to accommodate specific shoreline buffer uses and modifications identified in this section. Such allowances shall not require compensatory mitigation provided that the amount and extent of the clearing, limbing, and/or pruning are the minimum necessary to accommodate the allowed use and all other requirements of the Program are met:

    —————————————————————————–

    (13) view corridor NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer

    1. View Corridors: The Administrator may allow limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer to create a view of the shoreline when otherwise consistent with this Program. The removal, pruning, and/or limbing shall not require any ground-disturbing equipment and shall not materially alter soils or topography.

    ————————————————————————-

    (15) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    Administrator shall require a view clearance plan

    The Administrator shall require a view clearance plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the view corridor. The view clearance plan shall identify and describe the location and extent of the proposed tree removal, pruning, and limbing and shall demonstrate compliance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations (Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management – Standard Practices). For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the view clearance plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the proposed removal, pruning, and/or limbing will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the view corridor shall be clearly defined on the site plan.

    1. Private Pathways: Private pathways which provide pedestrian access to the shoreline may be allowed within the buffer provided they are constructed of pervious material, are less than or equal to six (6) feet wide, and follow a route that minimizes erosion and gullying

    ——————————————————————————–

    (16)  NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    Taking of Private property for Public access

    The removal of any reference to  the taking of private property for Public access, Clallam County has the highest public access to public land in WA State. At the Private DOE meeting on June 6, 2012 Gordon White agreed that we have sufficient cause 51% to remove any taking of private property for public access.

    —————————————————————————–

    (17) DISCUSSED AND DISMISSED

    EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal

     As questioned by Rob McKenna, why are the DOE SMP setbacks more restrictive the EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal.

    ——————————————————————————–

     (18) LEGALITY OF 80% TAKING  NOT DISCUSSED NOT ADDRESSED

    ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    1. At least eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area between the structures and the shoreline and/or critical area is maintained in a naturally vegetated condition.

    What provisions have the DOE made to  stay within the LAW?

    “It is now undisputed that the county had no authority to deprive residents of the use of their own private property.”CAO’S 65 PERCENT” SEIZURE OF PROPERTY PLF Lauds Supreme Court for “Driving a Stake Through One of the Most Extreme Assaults on Property Rights in the U.S.”

    SEATTLE, WA; March 4, 2009: The Washington Supreme Court

    the CAO limited rural landowners with five acres or more to clearing only 35 percent of their property, forcing them to maintain the remaining 65 percent as native vegetation indefinitely. Rural landowners owning less than five acres were allowed to clear only 50 percent of their parcels. Affected landowners had to continue paying taxes on the portion of the property rendered useless by the CAO.

    —————————————————————————–

    (19) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

     THE PROVISIONS OF WAC173-26-191 ANYTHING THAT MAY BE  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT A STATE LEVEL,

     MAY ALSO BE  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT A COUNTY LEVEL AND SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

     

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    2 The results of shoreline planning are summarized in shoreline master program policies that establish broad shoreline management directives. The policies are the basis for regulations that govern use and development along the shoreline.

    SOME MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES MAY NOT BE FULLY ATTAINABLE BY REGULATORY MEANS DUE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER LEGAL LIMITATIONS ON THE REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE POLICIES MAY BE PURSUED BY OTHER MEANS AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.240.

    SOME DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES A SHORELINE PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

     A LOCAL GOVERNMENT EVALUATES A PERMIT APPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES AND REGULATIONS AND APPROVES A PERMIT ONLY AFTER DETERMINING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CONFORMS TO THEM. EXCEPT

    WHERE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN STATUTE, THE REGULATIONS APPLY TO ALL USES AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SHORELINE JURISDICTION, WHETHER OR NOT A SHORELINE PERMIT IS REQUIRED, AND ARE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO RCW 90.58.050 and 90.58.140 AND ENFORCEMENT PURSUANT TO RCW

    90.58.210 through 90.58.230.

    ————————————————————-

    If any of you read this complete comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committees that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County on July 10, 2012,  prior to the final SMP Draft Proposal.

    INDEED, THE INTENT OF A PARTY CAN BE DETERMINED BY EXAMINING THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, AFTER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE NEGOTIATIONS, ANY PRACTICES THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THEMSELVES, USAGES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    IF THE PARTIES DON’T WANT YOU TO DO IT, THE PARTIES WILL MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FINANCIALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017). 


  • POTUS WOTUS EPA ACE and Justice Scalia

    POTUS WOTUS EPA ACE  and Justice Scalia

    President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017, to roll back the waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers ACE (Corps) promulgated in 2016.

    The Order is entitled, “Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.”

    It instructs EPA and the ACE Corps to begin the process of a rule-making to withdraw the WOTUS rule, id. at § 2(a), and to take appropriate actions in the courts where the rule is in litigation. Id. § 2(c).

    President Trump signed executive order on February 28, 2017 instructs EPA and the Corps to

    “CONSIDER” ADOPTING THE SCALIA TEST FROM RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).

    ORDER § 3. SCALIA OPINED IN RAPANOS THAT, “THE PHRASE ‘THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES’ includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.’. . . . The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. . .” 547 U.S. at 739.

    ————————————————————————

    Notice that Trump signed the EO back at the end of February 2017, and the EPA is JUST NOW sending the information out. It looks like they have deliberately STALLED.

    These statements have to be in by June 19, 2017. Heads up!

    ————————————————————————————

    THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

    IS LOCATED AT 33 CFR 329.4

    • 329.4 General definition.

    Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb (the outgoing phase; when the tide drains away from the shore) and flow (the incoming phase; when water rises again) of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of  navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    The federal definition 40 CFR 230 .3 pertains to the Clean Water Act and waters of the United States.

    WOTUS BY OBAMA

    The definition of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) is very dangerous and overreaching. Under section (o), parts of the definition read as follows:
    o) The term waters of the United States means: …

    (ii) All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;

    (iv) All impoundments of waters otherwise identified as waters of the United States under this section;

    (vi) All waters adjacent to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (v) of this section, including  wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar waters;

    (vii) All waters in paragraphs (o)(1)(vii)(A) through (E) of this section where they are determined, on a case-specific basis, to have a  significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. The waters identified in each of paragraphs (o)(1)(vii)(A) through (E) of this section are similarly situated and shall be combined, for purposes of a significant nexus analysis, in the watershed that drains to the nearest water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (o)(1)(vi) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an  adjacent water under paragraph (o)(1)(vi), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific significant nexus analysis is required.

    (A)Prairie potholes. Prairie potholes are a complex of glacially formed wetlands, usually occurring in depressions that lack permanent natural outlets, located in the upper Midwest.

    (viii) All waters located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section and all waters located within 4,000 feet of the high tideline or ordinary high water mark of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (v) of this section where they are determined on a case-specific basis to have a significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. For waters determined to have a  significant nexus, the entire water is a water of the United States if a portion is located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section or within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water mark. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (o)(1)(vi) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an adjacent water under paragraph (o)(1)(vi), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific  significant nexus analysis is required.

    —————————————————————————————

    WRITING FOR THE COURT IN THE 2014 CLEAN AIR ACT CASE, UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP V. EPA, JUSTICE SCALIA DECLARED EPA’S INTERPRETATION UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD BRING ABOUT AN ENORMOUS AND TRANSFORMATIVE EXPANSION IN EPA’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITHOUT CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

    JUSTICE SCALIA DECLARED “We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance,’” he wrote.
    —————————————————————————————

    OBAMA VETOES GOP ATTEMPT TO BLOCK WOTUS WATER RULE

    By Timothy Cama – 01/19/16 07:22 PM EST

    ———————————————————-

    EPA ‘Waters of U.S.’ Rule Is a Power Grab | National Review

    www.nationalreview.com/article/431134/epa-waters-us-rule-power-grab

    by Rupert Darwall February 11, 2016 4:00 AM. Obama’s power-mad agency claims jurisdiction over land and water use almost everywhere in … EPA, under the Clean Water Act, a statute Congress passed two years after its clean-air sibling. … partially checked, in what has become known as the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS).

    ————————————————————————————————-

    President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017, to roll back the waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) promulgated in 2016. The Order is entitled, “Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.” It instructs EPA and the Corps to begin the process of a rule-making to withdraw the WOTUS rule, id. at § 2(a), and to take appropriate actions in the courts where the rule is in litigation. Id. § 2(c).

    The Order raises a number of interesting issues. First, it instructs EPA and the Corps to “consider” adopting the Scalia test from Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Order § 3. Scalia opined in Rapanos that, “the phrase ‘the waters of the United States’ includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.’. . . . The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. . .” 547 U.S. at 739.

    Because Rapanos was a split decision (4–1–4), there is no controlling opinion. The circuit courts, applying the Marks analysis, have concluded that Kennedy’s lone concurring opinion, which focused on the significant-nexus test, is the controlling standard from the case. (A couple of circuits have allowed Kennedy’s or Scalia’s opinion to be used to establish jurisdiction.) All of the circuit courts and almost all of the district courts have rejected the argument that Scalia’s test should be adopted as the sole jurisdictional test. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari numerous times since Rapanos on WOTUS issues, so we have no clarification from the Court on how to interpret the decision.

    IT IS CLEAR WHY THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CHOSEN SCALIA’S TEST—IT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE OF JURISDICTION.

     THAN THE KENNEDY TEST, WHICH EPA AND THE CORPS ADOPTED IN THE WOTUS RULE.

    UNDER THE SCALIA TEST, MOST HEADWATER SYSTEMS—ESPECIALLY IN THE ARID WEST—WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO  THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) BECAUSE MOST HEADWATER SYSTEMS ARE EPHEMERAL OR INTERMITTENT AND ARE THEREFORE NOT “RELATIVELY PERMANENT WATERS.” HEADWATER SYSTEMS COMPRISE A LARGE PART OF THE NATION’S TRIBUTARY SYSTEM. IN PLACES LIKE ARIZONA EVEN THE MAIN CHANNELS ARE DRY MOST OF THE YEAR AND, THEREFORE, MAY NOT MEET THE SCALIA TEST FOR JURISDICTION.

     

    THE SCALIA TEST WOULD LIKELY ALSO REMOVE MANY OF THE NATIONS’ WETLANDS FROM . EXPANSION IN EPA’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITHOUT CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

     

    AS JUSTICE SCALIA SAID “WE EXPECT CONGRESS TO SPEAK CLEARLY IF IT WISHES TO ASSIGN TO AN AGENCY DECISIONS OF VAST ‘ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE,’”

    —————————————————————————-

    President Trump Issues Executive Order Directing EPA to Review the WOTUS Rule

    Thursday, March 2, 2017

    On February 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) to review the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) definition of “Waters of the United States”(WOTUS) Rule (the Rule) (80 Fed. Reg. 37054, June 29, 2015). Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule, Executive Order (Feb. 28, 2017) (EO). The EO directs EPA and ACE to review the WOTUS Rule for consistency with the policies set forth in the EO which specifies that “It is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution.” The EO also directs EPA and ACE to “publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the [WOTUS] rule, as appropriate and consistent with law.”

    Pursuant to the EO, EPA and ACE submitted for publication in the Federal Register, a notification of intention to review and rescind or revise the Rule. Notice of Intention to Review and Rescind or Revise the Clean Water Rule, Environmental Protection Agency and Dept. of Defense, Feb. 28, 2017. The notification will be published in the Federal Register in the coming days.

    THE EO ALSO DIRECTS EPA AND ACE TO CONSIDER INTERPRETING THE TERM “NAVIGABLE WATERS,”IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION OF JUSTICE SCALIA IN RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). The Rapanos opinion set out two separate standards for CWA jurisdiction. See Rapanos at 715‑718. Justice Scalia, writing for a plurality, determined that the statute should only apply when there is a “continuous surface connection”between “relatively permanent”waters. Id. at 743. Justice Kennedy, on the other hand, determined that jurisdiction should be based on whether a water or wetland possesses “a significant nexus to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.” Id. at 759. Neither standard was supported by a majority, so neither standard has become binding precedent. See Id. at 715-718. Regulators, however, have generally followed Justice Kennedy’s standard,

    AND THUS, A SWITCH TO JUSTICE SCALIA’S STANDARD WOULD REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL EXTENT OF THE CWA. SEE 80 FED. REG. 37054, 37056, 37060-37061 [WOTUS RULE].


  • The Elwha River Limbo Land

    The Elwha River Limbo Land

    SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE?

    ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012  By Lynda V. Mapes  Seattle Times staff reporter

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”? THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

    THEY WERE TO BE SET ASIDE FOR USE, AS, BY ELIGIBLE PARTY’S?

    THAT IS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    WERE THEY FACTUALLY?  SPECIFICALLY? SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT??

    WHY IS CLALLAM COUNTY WA NOT LISTED AS AN ELIGIBLE PARTY FOR A CLALLAM COUNTY RECREATIONAL AREA?

    WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DAM SOUTHWEST OF PORT ANGELES IN 1992, THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE TO BE SET ASIDE EITHER FOR USE AS

    1. A STATE PARK,
    2. A NATIONAL PARK OR
    3. A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OR
    4. BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE.

    SO FAR, THE TRIBE IS THE ONLY ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT HAS A PLAN AND A DESIRE FOR THE LAND.

    AUGUST 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND, BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTED TODD SUESS, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

    FOR NOW, THE PARK SERVICE, WHICH ALREADY MANAGES 85 PERCENT OF THE ELWHA WATERSHED, IS MANAGING THE LANDS. PARK RANGERS ARE PROVIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OFFERING INTERPRETIVE WALKS ON SOME OF THE PROJECT LANDS, EXCLUDING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES, WHICH ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED.

    NO MATTER WHO ENDS UP OWNING THE LAND, MORE THAN 700 ACRES OF IT ALONG THE RIVER AND IN ITS FLOOD PLAIN WILL REMAIN IN ITS NATURAL STATE IN PERPETUITY,

    WITH PUBLIC ACCESS MAINTAINED.

    THAT IS ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    ——————————————————————

    QUESTION THIS….. SOME 1,100 ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND WAITING IN OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK LIMBO LAND SINCE AUGUST 10, 2012?

    ACCORDING TO ???? 

    THAT IS “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    READ THE ELWHA ACT, WHAT DID IT PROMISE? CLEAN WATER? HOW MUCH WATER? POWER REPLACEMENT? PUBLIC ACCESS INTO PERPETUITY? 

    WITH ALL THE FALSE NEWS NOW DAYS….

    THIS IS THE LAW, READ IT,  YOU DECIDE…

    Public Law 102-495 102d Congress An Act

    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-106/pdf/STATUTE-106-Pg3173.pdf

    Oct 24, 1992 – 24, 1992. 106 STAT. 3173. Public Law 102-495. 102d Congress. An Act … SHORT TITLE. This Act may be referred to as the “Elwha River Ecosystem … of the Projects and his plans for the full restoration of the Elwha.

    ———————————————————————————-

    ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 at 9:00 pm Updated February 11, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    Elwha tribe finds legendary creation site, wants uncovered land

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE LANDS THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL, including sacred lands of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe?

    Section Sponsor Share story

    By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter

    SLOWLY EMERGING FROM WHAT USED TO BE UNDER LAKE ALDWELL AND ELWHA DAM ARE SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE.

    WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DAM SOUTHWEST OF PORT ANGELES IN 1992, THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE TO BE SET ASIDE EITHER FOR USE AS A STATE PARK, A NATIONAL PARK OR A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OR BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE. SO FAR, THE TRIBE IS THE ONLY ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT HAS A PLAN AND A DESIRE FOR THE LAND.

    That desire became even more intense last month, with the discovery of the tribe’s creation site. Long passed on in oral tradition, the sacred site is where, by tribal teaching, the Creator bathed and blessed the Klallam people, and where tribal members for generations uncounted sought to learn their future.

    But the site was covered by the waters behind Elwha Dam, and had not been seen by anyone in the tribe since construction of the dam between 1910 and 1913. Many feared it had been destroyed by blasting during dam construction — and some came to doubt if it had ever existed at all.

    Frances Charles, chairwoman of the tribe, said she and other tribal members visited the site last month after receiving a call from National Park Service cultural-resources staff, who believed they had found the site.

    “A group of us walked to the site and actually stood on the rock known to us as the creation site,” Charles said this week. “It was eerie in some ways. We were walking on the soil that had been underwater for 100 years, and witnessing the old cedars. It was emotional, with joy and happiness. We sang a prayer song and an honor song, and had the opportunity to stand there and really praise our ancestors and the elders for telling the stories.”

    To see that those stories actually were true was overwhelming, Charles said.

    “To so many out there, it was a myth,” she said. “To be able to feel the spiritual tie to the land, and know, yes, this is real, the stories that you have heard, they are true. It is very, very powerful and very humbling.”

    The park service also reported this week finding a site in another location within a former reservoir that documents human use as far back as 8,000 years ago, establishing it as one of the oldest known archaeological sites on the Olympic Peninsula. The park service collected material for analysis and reburied the site.

    For the tribe, the recovery of its cultural sites is a deeper dimension of the Elwha restoration, affirming the truth of the tribe’s presence here for so long.

    “The land continues to show us, it speaks,” Charles said. “To be able to go down there and feel the power of the water and the land, and look at a landmark that has been covered for so many years, now being able to breathe.”

    THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND, BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTED TODD SUESS, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

    FOR NOW, THE PARK SERVICE, WHICH ALREADY MANAGES 85 PERCENT OF THE ELWHA WATERSHED, IS MANAGING THE LANDS. PARK RANGERS ARE PROVIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OFFERING INTERPRETIVE WALKS ON SOME OF THE PROJECT LANDS, EXCLUDING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES, WHICH ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED.

    NO MATTER WHO ENDS UP OWNING THE LAND, MORE THAN 700 ACRES OF IT ALONG THE RIVER AND IN ITS FLOOD PLAIN WILL REMAIN IN ITS NATURAL STATE IN PERPETUITY, WITH PUBLIC ACCESS MAINTAINED. THAT IS ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    But the tribe, if it comes to steward the lands, also would like to use some portions of the remaining property outside the archaeological sites and river corridor for housing or economic development, said Robert Elofson, director of river restoration for the tribe.

    In addition to protecting the tribe’s cultural resources, transfer of the property to the tribe would help the Lower Elwha Klallam realize a long unmet need for an adequate land base, Elofson said.

    When the United States purchased the core of what is now the tribe’s reservation in the late 1930s, the superintendent of the then-Office of Indian Affairs stated that six sections of land, almost 4,500 acres along the Elwha River, would be the appropriate size of the reservation for the tribe — which was far smaller then.

    But in the end, the government acquired only 300 acres for the tribe — and took another three decades to finally convey the land for the tribe’s reservation in 1968, in part because of opposition by sport fishermen.

    The tribe has continued to buy land ever since on its own, and today has about 1,000 acres along the Elwha River. But the reservation still is missing the lands that used to be under Elwha Dam and its reservoir.

    “We lost a lot of land,” said Adeline Smith, one of the oldest living members of the tribe. “There were campsites along the river, and at least two big settlements. The medicinal plants, the berries, the wildlife, they were all part of our life by the river.

    “It was ours and our way of life. I hope someday it will be again.”

    Lynda V. Mapes: 206-464-2736 or lmapes@seattletimes.com. On Twitter @lyndavmapes.

    Lynda V. Mapes: 206-464-2736 or lmapes@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @LyndaVMapes. Lynda specializes in coverage of the environment, natural history, and Native American tribes.

    —————————————————————

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”? THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

    A CLALLAM COUNTY CONCERNED CITIZEN EXPRESSED INTEREST ON MARCH 9, 2017

    THE ELWHA RIVER PROJECT LANDS THAT WERE A PUBLIC TOURIST RECREATIONAL DESTINATION?

    WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE ELWHA RIVER CAMP GROUNDS, FOR PUBLIC CAMPING, PICNICS, FISHING, ALLOWING A PRIVATE WALKS ON PUBLIC TRAILS,  UN-ESCORTED BY ONP PARK RANGERS, PEACEFUL HIKING TRAILS,  SOLITUDE WITHOUT ONP RANGERS INTERPRETATIONS ,  A BOAT LAUNCH, RESTROOMS, A STORE, AND OUR CITIZENS WAY OF LIFE. I HOPE SOMEDAY IT WILL BE AGAIN.”

    THIS IS A  CLALLAM COUNTY CONCERNED CITIZEN EXPRESSING  INTEREST

    Behind My Back | The New Elwha Bridge and Rest Stop?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/03/09/the-new-elwha-bridge-and-rest-stop/

    Mar 9, 2017 – With the replacement of the Elwha River bridge by WSDOT at an … Why stop with just a Clallam County rest stop on the Norm’s Resort Property …

    THESE ARE CONCERNED CITIZEN’S OF CLALLAM COUNTY EXPRESSING  INTEREST

    Clallam County WA | Citizen Review Online

    citizenreviewonline.org/category/clallam-county-wa/

    Posted on March 9, 2017 by Pearl Rains Hewett, www.behindmyback.org. The New Elwha Bridge and Rest Stop? Who knew? What Rest Stop?


  • China Dam Smart? U.S.A. Dam Stupid?

    China Dam Smart?  U.S.A. Dam Stupid?

    CHINA WAS SO DAM SMART THAT THEY BUILT THE BIGGEST DAM IN THE WORLD

    The Chinese dam policy was to build and keep dams to provide clean renewable electric power, control the dam water and prevent the dam flooding and release the dam water to prevent drought

    HE WHO CONTROLS THE WATER CONTROLS THE WORLD?

    WHAT PART OF THIS DAM CHINESE POLICY DID THE DAM US GOVERNMENT NOT UNDERSTAND?

    IT WAS NOT HE WHO “OWNS THE WATER”, WOTUS….

    IT IS”HE WHO CONTROLS THE WATER”

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/wotus-water-runs-down-hill/

    Sep 4, 2015 – “WATERS OF UNITED STATES” POWER GRAB. WOTUS RULE – Pacific Legal Foundation https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus. Pacific Legal Foundation

    DAMS CONTROL WATER. period

    THE STUPID US GOVERNMENT WAS SO “DAM DUMB” THEY WORK FOR THE DAM LOBBYIST AND THE DAM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. SAVE THE DAM SALMON AT WHAT COST?

    Behind My Back | How Dam Dumb is the US Government?

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/04/17/how-dam-dumb-is-the-us-government/

    Apr 17, 2016CHINA WAS SO DAM SMART THAT THEY BUILT THE BIGGEST DAM IN THE WORLD. … www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/WOTUS-WATER-RUNS-DOWN-HILL/ … Jun 12, 2013 – ACCORDING TO AMERICAN RIVERS, 65 US dams were …

    THE SAGA OF THE STUPID U.S.A. DAM DESTRUCTION

    Map of U.S. Dams Removed Since 1916 | American Rivers

    https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/restoring…rivers/dam-removal-map/

    Today, many dams that were once at the epicenter of a community’s livelihood are now old, unsafe or no longer serving their intended purposes. Learn how …

    THE ELWHA RIVER DAMS THAT WERE ONCE THE EPICENTER OF OUR COMMUNITY’S LIVELIHOOD, ARE NO LONGER SERVING THEIR INTENDED PURPOSES. period

    THEIR INTENDED DAM PURPOSES?  Protecting and Providing Clallam County’s infrastructure, (the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants)

    Indeed, THE INTENDED ELWHA DAM PURPOSES, Dam cheap, dam clean hydroelectric power, dam renewable energy that kept the dam economy strong, providing a clean water supply, insuring flooding and drought protection, preventing millions of dam dollars of destruction in and on public and private land, property, protecting public access roads, and A COUPLE OF the really big epicenter of our communities livelihood,  THE OLYMPIC HOT SPRINGS ROAD? THE TOURISM, THE ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK THAT KEPT OUR ECONOMY STRONG, INCLUDED TWO BEAUTIFUL LAKES.

    IT’S A DAM SHAME THAT 300,000 TOURISTS  CAN’T GET THERE FROM PORT ANGELES WA.

    LEARN HOW DAM STUPID…….THE REMOVAL OF THE BIGGEST DAM REMOVAL EVER, WORKED OUT FOR PORT ANGELES, CLALLAM COUNTY ETAL., WASHINGTON STATE U.S.A.

    AS PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED “HOW’S THE U.S.A DAM

    SYSTEM WORKING OUT FOR YOU?

    SEABURY BLAIR JR. | Elwha too clogged for fish to live

    Seabury Blair Jr.
    Columnist

    Posted: April 15, 2013

     

    Two days after I hiked the sandy, rocky desolation that used to be Lake Mills, as many as 200,000 chinook salmon were killed in what has to be one of the biggest blunders in the history of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.

    The year-old salmon were released from the new $16 million Elwha Hatchery run by the state and Lower Elwha Klallam tribe on April 5. Most — if not all — were killed when they tried to swim downstream through the thick gray goop that is the lower Elwha River, created by the removal of two dams built illegally in 1910.

    Though they only had to negotiate 3.5 miles of the river before reaching clearer waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the silt in the river began choking them almost the minute they swam from the crystalline hatchery water into the moving mire that is the Elwha. Hatchery officials reported seeing hundreds of dead smolts lining the riverbank, their gills clogged by the same silt that forced “temporary closure” of a $70 million Elwha River water treatment plant.

    In the Port Angeles Daily News, Mike Gross, Fish and Wildlife biologist, called the release of the salmon “a mistake.” Gross said he suspected the fish suffocated when silt prevented their gills from providing oxygen.

    I imagine it would be akin to trying to breathe volcanic ash for days without a mask, or running a marathon in a massive dust storm.

    Hatchery officials said they checked on the amount of silt in the Elwha on April 4, and determined it was acceptable to release the fish. They said the silt in the river increased overnight.

    I hiked about 3 miles downstream in the desolate bed of the former Lake Mills on April 3, and I don’t need a degree in biology to tell you that no fish could live in that water. The river looked no different when I left the Elwha Campground on April 4.

    For almost 15 miles, the Elwha River carves through a century’s worth of mud, sand and river cobble deposited behind the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams. Above Rica Canyon, at the entrance to the former Lake Mills, the river is the same old blue friend I’ve known for more than 50 years.

    But beginning at the old Lake Mills inlet, the river turns into gray slurry that is poison to any fish. I don’t imagine many wild animals drink from that deadly potion and live, either.

    Fisheries biologists have been releasing coho salmon into Indian Creek, which flows from the west into the Elwha; and Little River, which flows from the east. Both tributaries are about 7 miles upstream from the mouth of the river.

    They’ve reported some of the fish, along with a few chinook they released into Lake Mills before it became the desolation it is today, have survived the gantlet of poison. Now the state is planning to release nearly a million salmon from the hatchery in June.

    About the same time, work on removing the remainder of the Glines Canyon dam is expected to resume, which will surely cause more sediment to be swept downstream. Worse, concrete dust from the dam will be stirred into the mix, making it even more deadly.

    Let us hope the state and tribe can think of a way to get healthy salmon from the hatchery to the Strait before they kill a million more fish.

    Seabury Blair Jr. is the author of Backcountry Ski! Washington; Day Hike! Olympic Peninsula; Day Hike! Columbia Gorge; The Creaky Knees Guide to Washington; the Creaky Knees Guide to Oregon; and Washington Wild Roads. Email Seabury at skiberry@hughes.net.

    ————————————————————————-

    HOW’S THE SYSTEM WORKING OUT FOR PORT ANGELES WA?

    Port Angeles to sue Park Service in dispute over Elwha River water …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/port-angeles-to-sue-park-service-in-dispute-over-el

    6 days ago – PORT ANGELES — The Port Angeles City Council has set the stage for … impasse related to the historic removal of the Elwha River dams.

    snippet….City Attorney Bill Bloor said at the council meeting Tuesday that the Park Service has not provided contract information being sought by the city on the $25 million Elwha River surface water intake and treatment facilities.

    ————————————————————-

    Word gets around in cyberspace

    New post on Pie N Politics Siskiyou County CA

    Port Angeles to sue Park Service in dispute over Elwha River water facilities

    by Liz Bowen

    PNP comment:  Port Angeles is a city in and the county seat of Clallam County,

    Washington, United States. With a population of 19,038 as of the 2010 census,[7]

    it is the largest city in the county, according to Wikipedia. It is worth checking out the entire article at the link below.

    It looks like the fed gov. is not fulfilling its obligations. Shock !!! — Editor Liz Bowen

    —————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Pie N Politics page (1)

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/07/27/pie-n-politics-page-1/

    Jul 27, 2015 – Pie N Politics page (1) Pie N Politics. Like many areas of the United States, citizens in Siskiyou County are finding government regulations are …

    Aug 19, 2016 – A PLAN TO REMOVE FOUR KLAMATH RIVER DAMS

    TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT FOR FISH AND RIVER COMMUNITIES

    ———————————————————————————

    The removal of  two dams on the Elwha River in WA State  2011-2014 “WAS”  previously the biggest dam removal DISASTER in U.S. History.

    After the removal of the Elwha River Dams.

    Apr 15, 2013 ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY?

    THE QUALITY OF MY PORT ANGELES DRINKING WATER….

    SEABURY BLAIR JR. | Elwha too clogged for fish to live – Kitsap Sun

    http://www.kitsapsun.com/sports/columnists/seabury-blair/356167261.html

    ————————————————————

    YEP, THE ELWHA DAM PROTECTED THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA’S ACCESS INFRASTRUCTURE, THE ELWHA RIVER BRIDGE.

    Battered by Dam Removal – Elwha Bridge

    Posted on January 11, 2017 4:26 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    Battered by Dam Removal Elwha Bridge Destroyed

    A DAM TRAGEDY THE ELWHA RIVER BRIDGE

    ———————————————————————

    Flooding is a Dam Shame

    Posted on June 28, 2013 7:31 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    Drought is a dam shame

    China was so dam smart that they built the biggest dam in the world.

    He who controls the water controls the world?

    In the USA the government was and is so dam stupid they decided that hydro electric power was not dam clean, dam cheap, dam renewable dam energy, not dam flood control and not dam drought and dam property loss prevention.

    The dam Chinese government is so dam smart they work in the best interest of the dam people.

    The Chinese dam prevents the dam loss of life, billions of dam dollars in property damage, provides dam cheap, dam clean, dam renewable, dam energy and helps keep their dam economy strong.

    The Chinese dam controls the dam water releases the dam water to eliminate the dam droughts

    What part of this dam Chinese policy does the dam US government not understand?

    THE US GOVERNMENT IS SO DAM DUMB THEY WORK FOR THE DAM LOBBYIST AND THE DAM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. SAVE THE DAM ENDANGERED etal., ad nausaum, SALMON AT WHAT COST?

    The best dam interest of the dam people in the USA be dammed

    As dictated by the dam US government

    The dam people in the dam USA are flooded and cleaning up the dam water damage for six dam months of the year.

    The dam people in the USA suffer the dam drought for the other six dam months of the year

    The Chinese dam policy was to build and keep dams to provide clean renewable electric power, control the dam water and prevent the dam flooding and release the dam water to prevent drought

    THE DAM USA POLICY CREATES LOSS OF DAM LIFE, DAM MISERY AND DAM SUFFERING FOR MILLIONS OF DAM AMERICANS EVERY DAM YEAR.

    AS PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD ASK

    “HOW’S THE DAM U.S.A. SYSTEM WORKING OUT FOR YOU?


  • Elwha Supplemental Impact Statement?

    Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

    The installation of Scott Pruitt, to run the Environmental Protection Agency, sued the agency he intends to lead more than a dozen times as Oklahoma attorney general, reinforces expectations.

    “I have no doubt that Scott will return the EPA to its core objectives,” said Republican Senator James Inhofe, also of Oklahoma, adding the agency had been guilty of “federal overreach, unlawful rule making, and duplicative red tape,”

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    National Park Service

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002. Elwha Ecosystem Restoration Implementation; Olympic National Park; Clallam and Jefferson Counties, WA; Notice of Intent To Prepare a SUPPLEMENTAL Environmental Impact Statement FILED 9-11-02 

    Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

    (FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS, SEE ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY MITIGATION PROJECT

    PLANNING REPORT AT www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).

     Mar 30 2017, Olympic National Park WE CAN’T FIND THAT PAGE….

    ——————————————————————————-

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002. MITIGATION PROJECT ISSUES?   IT’S IMPACT ON VISITORS? AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON VISITORS? FILED 9-11-02 

    Water quality or water supply mitigation issues that will be analyzed in the SEIS include impacts of rebuilding the existing rock diversion structure on riparian vegetation, wildlife, water quality and fish; land use related impacts of building permanent water treatment facilities, such as removal of vegetation and soil, use of heavy equipment to build the facilities and its impact on wildlife or VISITORS,

    VISITORS? WOW, IS THAT LIKE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT ON CLALLAM COUNTY TOURISM?

    and hazards of using chlorine and other chemicals required for treatment.    Other environmental issues not related to water quality or supply include providing access to Morse Creek and other tributaries for fisheries protection during dam removal, access to seed stock and protection of young plants in revegetating reservoir lands, changes in driving routes for trucks disposing of rubble, or noise of an onsite rubble crushing operation and its potential effects on wildlife and VISITORS.

    VISITORS? WOW, IS THAT LIKE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT ON CLALLAM COUNTY TOURISM?

    VISITORS? LIKE AN IMPACT STATEMENT ONP INHOLDERS?

    ——————————————————

    Jun 28, 2011

    Olympic National Park mea culpa: ‘Inholder’ blocked from family property

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/olympic-national-park-mea-culpa-8216-inholder-82…

    Jun 28, 2011 – Pearl Rains Hewett stands at a blockade on Olympic Hot Springs Road in Olympic National Park on Monday. — Photo by Chris …

    ————————————————————-

    FISH BEFORE PEOPLE

    Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan – National Park Service

    https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/upload/Elwha-River-Fish-Management-Plan.pdf

    2008 – ‎Related articles

    THE SITE WILL HELP PRESERVE AND RESTORE ELWHA RIVER CHINNOOK POPULATIONS BY PROVIDING SAFE HAVEN FOR 200,000 YEARLING SMOLTS.

    —————————————————————-

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002.

    Dam removal was determined to be the preferred option for restoration, and the 1996 EIS also identified a desired suite of actions to remove the dams. As a step towards accomplishing these objectives, Congress directed purchase of the dams (which occurred in February 2000 for $29.5 million, as stipulated by Pub. L. 102-495).

    ————————————————————————-

    AS A DELEGATED EIS, THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL DECISION IS THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST REGION;

     SUBSEQUENTLY THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION WOULD BE THE SUPERINTENDENT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

     DATED: JULY 9, 2002.JOHN J. REYNOLDS,REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST REGION.[FR DOC. 02-23124 FILED 9-11-02; 8:45 AM]BILLING CODE 4310-70-P

    (FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS, SEE ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY MITIGATION PROJECT

    PLANNING REPORT AT www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).

     Mar 30 2017 WE CAN’T FIND THAT PAGE….

    Written comments may be delivered by fax to: 360/565-1325; via e-mail to: Brian_Winter@nps.gov; or via postal mail or hand delivery during normal business hours to: Elwha Restoration Project Office, SEIS Comments, 826 East Front Street, Suite A, Port Angeles, WA 98362.

    ———————————————————————-

    Timeline of the Elwha 1992 to Present – Olympic National Park (U.S. …

    https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/…/timeline-of-the-elwha-1992-to-present.htm

    THE SITE WILL HELP PRESERVE AND RESTORE ELWHA RIVER CHINNOOK POPULATIONS BY PROVIDING SAFE HAVEN FOR 200,000 YEARLING SMOLTS. … Before his death in 2007, Albright pioneered propagation methods for many plants native to the Northwest.

    ———————————————————————

    Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan – National Park Service

    https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/upload/Elwha-River-Fish-Management-Plan.pdf

    2008 – ‎Related articles

    PURSUANT TO THE ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM AND FISHERIES RES- TORATION ACT …… 200,000. MORSE CREEK. YEARLING SMOLTS. ON-SITE. 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 …… Spawning ground surveys of live or dead fish and redds can then be.

    —————————————————————————

    Apr 15, 2013

    ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY  200,000  DEAD SMOLT

    SEABURY BLAIR JR. | Elwha too clogged for fish to live – Kitsap Sun

    www.kitsapsun.com/sports/columnists/seabury-blair/356167261.html

    Apr 15, 2013 – … AS MANY AS 200000 CHINOOK SALMON WERE KILLED IN WHAT HAS TO BE ONE OF THE … HATCHERY OFFICIALS REPORTED SEEING HUNDREDS OF DEAD SMOLTS LINING THE … For almost 15 miles, the Elwha River carves through a century’s worth of … ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY  

    JUL 12, 2013 LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE’S HATCHERY

    200, 000  MORE DEAD SMOLT

    400,000 TOTAL DEAD HATCHERY SMOLT…

    —————————————————————–

    The Danger of Putting All Your Eggs in the Hatchery Basket — Wild …

    wildfishconservancy.org › About › Press › Press Clips

    JUL 12, 2013 – ROUGHLY 200,000 HATCHERY COHO SALMON AND 2000 STEELHEAD, RESULTING FROM A PUMP FAILURE AT THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE’S HATCHERY ON THE ELWHA RIVER. …

     SPRING  Apr 15, 2013 THANKS TO MISTAKEN TIMING OF LARGE RELEASE OF SMOLTS AT ONE TIME … PRODUCTION LOST (200,000 DEAD) DUE TO MALFUNCTION OF HATCHERY WATER PUMP …

    The tragedy is: this production could have occurred with much less risk with natural spawning left to the river where fish make their own decisions regarding spawning destination and time, and juveniles determine their own window for outmigration.  Instead these fish have been hi-jacked by the continued belief in hatcheries rather than the proven success story of wild fish recolonization for thousands of years and resulting diversity that hedges its bets against the whims of nature’s unpredictable events.  And we paid $16 million to create this Elwha hatchery fiasco plus further annual investments in taking fish from the river and subjecting them to the persistent belief in hatcheries that is counter to the science — further evidence of the tragic disconnect of science from policy, the latter continually driven by the politics of popular beliefs.

    http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20130711/news/307119990

     ————————————————————————————

     (FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS, SEE ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY MITIGATION PROJECT

    PLANNING REPORT AT www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).

    WE CAN’T FIND THAT PAGE….

    THE SEIS WILL ALSO ANALYZE CHANGES UNRELATED TO WATER QUALITY

    MITIGATION WHERE APPLICABLE.

    One of these changes is a re-evaluation of

    options to mitigate impacts to septic systems on the Lower Elwha

    Klallam Reservation. Many of the septic systems in the lower lying

    parts of the Reservation may become ineffective when the river level

    and associated groundwater table rises as a result of river channel

    aggradation following dam removal.

    In addition to the points summarized above, further detail has been added to the revegetation plan for the areas currently inundated by the reservoirs; thus, potential impacts of

    actions associated with such revegetation will be addressed.

    ———————————————————–

    Full unedited text

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    National Park Service Elwha Ecosystem Restoration Implementation;

    Olympic National Park; Clallam and Jefferson Counties, WA;

    Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement [Federal Register: September 12, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 177)][Notices][Page 57834-57836]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov][DOCID:fr12se02-94] SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and its cooperating agencies are undertaking a conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process intended to supplement the 1996 Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation final environmental impact statement (1996 EIS).

    Two dams, built in the early 1900s, block the river and limit anadromous fish to the lowest 4.9 river miles. The 1996 EIS is the second of two environmental impact statements that examined how best to restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fishery in Olympic National Park. Dam removal was determined to be the preferred option for restoration, and the 1996 EIS also identified a desired suite of actions to remove the dams. As a step towards accomplishing these objectives, Congress directed purchase of the dams (which occurred in February 2000 for $29.5 million, as stipulated by Pub. L. 102-495). However, release of sediment from behind the dams would result in sometimes severe impacts to water quality or to the reliability of supply to downstream users during the dam removal impact period of about 3-5 years, which the 1996 EIS proposed mitigating through a series of specific measures (see below).

    Subsequently, new research and changes unrelated to the implementation project have emerged. Therefore, the primary purpose of this Supplemental EIS (SEIS) will be to identify and analyze potential impacts of a new set of water quality and supply related mitigation measures.

    Background     Elwha Dam was built in 1911, and Glines Canyon Dam in 1925, limiting anadromous fish to the lowest 4.9 miles of river (blocking access to more than 70 miles of Elwha River mainstream and tributary habitat). The two dams and their associated reservoirs have also inundated and degraded important riverine and terrestrial habitat and severely affected fisheries habitat through increased temperatures, reduced nutrients, reduced spawning gravels downstream, and other changes. Consequently, salmon and steelhead populations in the river have been considerably reduced or eliminated, and the river ecosystem within Olympic National Park significantly and adversely altered.

    In 1992, Congress enacted the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (PL 102-495) directing the Secretary of the Interior to fully restore the Elwha river ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries, while at the same time protecting users of the river’s water from adverse impacts associated with dam removal. The records of decision associated with this process indicated removal of both dams was needed to fully restore the ecosystem. However, impacts to water quality and supply will result from release of sediments, which have accumulated behind the dams.

    The 1996 EIS proposed and analyzed mitigation measures to protect water quality and ensure supply for each of the major downstream users. These users included the city of Port Angeles’ municipal and industrial consumers, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe’s fish hatchery, the state chinook salmon rearing channel, and the Dry Creek Water Association. Many private wells along the river could also be affected, but mitigation proposed for these users would remain substantially the same.    Currently, surface water from a rock fill diversion and intake pipe at river mile 3.3 supplies the city’s industrial clients and the state rearing channel. Mitigation to protect the city’s industrial customers described in the 1996 EIS included the installation of an infiltration gallery to collect water filtered from the riverbed and open-channel treatment with flocculants, chemicals and polymers during dam removal. The city’s municipal customers are supplied with a subsurface Ranney collector on the east-side of the river at river mile 2.8. To maintain water yield, the 1996 EIS [[Page 57835]] proposed a second Ranney collector be built on the river’s west-side, opposite the current collector. A temporary “package” treatment plant to filter water from the Ranney wells would have been operational during dam removal.

    The rearing channel would have been closed during dam removal and chinook production transferred to another state facility.    The tribal hatchery at river mile 1 will be central in protecting and producing Elwha anadromous fish for restoration following dam removal. Water for the hatchery is currently provided through wells and a shallow infiltration gallery. Measures described to protect hatchery water during dam removal included the expansion of the gallery to ensure supply and drilling of two new wells to provide clean groundwater for dilution.

    Dry Creek Water Association (DCWA) currently meets the needs of its members through groundwater wells. These wells would be subject to an increased frequency of flooding following dam removal, as well as increased sediment and mobilization of iron and manganese. The 1996 EIS analyzed two options for DCWA–connection to the city’s water distribution system, or providing additional protection from flooding for the existing DCWA system and treating on site with filtration and chlorination.

    Since December 1996 (when the most recent record of decision was signed), the U.S. Department of the Interior (including Bureau of Reclamation) and its cooperating agencies (including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe) have continued studying and refining elements of the selected alternative. As a result, they have found better solutions for protecting water quality and water supply during and following dam removal. In addition, changes in user needs have come about as a result of factors unrelated to the project.

    For example, chinook salmon and bull trout have both been listed as threatened since 1997, resulting in the requirement to keep the state rearing facility open during dam removal.

    Also, the city of Port Angeles must now meet new standards for the treatment of its municipal supplies. In addition, an industrial customer (Rayonier) which required very high quality water for its operation has since closed.    As a result of these and other changes, the agencies are pursuing an option of building permanent water treatment facilities with varying levels of treatment depending on the ultimate use of the water

    (for additional details, see Elwha River Water Quality Mitigation Project Planning Report at www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).  The locations and types of diversions may also change because water collected from the city’s Ranney well is no longer considered to be purely groundwater, but is highly connected to the river and so must be treated as a surface supply.

    In addition, problems associated with subsurface intakes during the 3-5 year dam removal impact period may now outweigh the benefits. These problems include possible clogging and reduced yields, increased costs of providing flood protection, and increased environmental impacts associated with installing and maintaining subsurface structures in or very near the river. Sources of “true” groundwater, which are not so closely connected to the river have been investigated, but do not exist in the quantities required. This leaves surface water as a more attractive option. An alternative of replacing the existing intake structure will therefore be analyzed in the SEIS.

    Feasibility studies indicate surface water could be treated and used for the city’s industrial customer, in combination with well water for the state’s rearing facility and the Lower Elwha Klallam tribal hatchery, and as a backup for the city’s municipal customers. It may also be evaluated as an option to supply DCWA customers.

    The SEIS will also analyze changes unrelated to water quality mitigation where applicable. One of these changes is a re-evaluation of options to mitigate impacts to septic systems on the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation. Many of the septic systems in the lower lying parts of the Reservation may become ineffective when the river level and associated groundwater table rises as a result of river channel aggradation following dam removal. Although the 1996 EIS examined a community mounding system, the number of residents living in the valley part of the Reservation has now increased. The SEIS will evaluate other options which are technically, economically, or environmentally preferable in light of these changes. At this time, the Tribe is considering a variety of options, including individual onsite systems with pressurized pumps, small group treatment options, offsite treatment by others, or combining with other valley residents (who would not be affected by dam removal) to create a community treatment system.

    Since the release of the 1996 EIS, two species of fish cited for restoration have been listed as threatened, and the NPS has worked with USFWS and NMFS staff to further address these species during and following dam removal. Keeping the rearing channel open for chinook salmon production and modifying road culverts within the park to provide access for bull trout to additional tributary habitat are examples of some of the additional actions that the SEIS will examine.

    Environmental Issues     Updated and additional information relevant to decision-making will be presented in the SEIS. In addition to the points summarized above, further detail has been added to the revegetation plan for the areas currently inundated by the reservoirs; thus, potential impacts of actions associated with such revegetation will be addressed. The 1996 EIS envisioned using one or more of nine solid waste disposal areas for rubble and other materials. Some of these may no longer be available, new sites might be added, or recycling of concrete may be economically preferable now.    Water quality or water supply mitigation issues that will be analyzed in the SEIS include impacts of rebuilding the existing rock diversion structure on riparian vegetation, wildlife, water quality and fish; land use related impacts of building permanent water treatment facilities, such as removal of vegetation and soil, use of heavy equipment to build the facilities and its impact on wildlife or visitors, and hazards of using chlorine and other chemicals required for treatment.    Other environmental issues not related to water quality or supply include providing access to Morse Creek and other tributaries for fisheries protection during dam removal, access to seed stock and protection of young plants in revegetating reservoir lands, changes in driving routes for trucks disposing of rubble, or noise of an onsite rubble crushing operation and its potential effects on wildlife and visitors.

    Scoping/Comments     Public scoping for the SEIS will conclude 30-days from the date of publication of this notice. All interested individuals, groups, and agencies are encouraged to provide information relevant to the design, construction, location, or potential environmental effects of desired measures noted above. Please limit comments to the proposal as described in this notice, since prior decisions to restore the ecosystem and anadromous fisheries through dam removal, and selection of the River Erosion alternative as the dam removal scenario, are beyond the scope of environmental impact analysis targeted in the SEIS. [[Page 57836]]

    Additional information and periodic updates will be available at the Web site noted above or by contacting the Elwha Restoration Project Office at (360) 565-1320. All comments must be postmarked or transmitted no later than 30 days from the publication date of this notice; as soon as this date is determined it will be announced on the Web site noted.

    Written comments may be delivered by fax to: 360/565-1325; via e-mail to: Brian_Winter@nps.gov; or via postal mail or hand delivery during normal business hours to: Elwha Restoration Project Office, SEIS Comments, 826 East Front Street, Suite A, Port Angeles, WA 98362.    If individuals submitting comments request that their name or/and address be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold a respondent’s identity as allowable by law. As always: NPS will make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses; and, anonymous comments may not be considered. Decision

    The SEIS will be prepared in accord with all applicable laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the NPS Management Policies (2001) and NEPA guidelines (Director’s Order 12). A 60-day public review of the Draft will be initiated upon its release, which at this time is expected in early 2003; then subsequently a Final will be prepared. Issuance of both documents will be announced via local and regional press, direct mailings, on the Web site noted above, and through the Federal Register.

    AS A DELEGATED EIS, THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL DECISION IS THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST REGION;

    SUBSEQUENTLY THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION WOULD BE THE SUPERINTENDENT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002.

    JOHN J. REYNOLDS,REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

    PACIFIC WEST REGION.[FR DOC. 02-23124

    FILED 9-11-02; 8:45 AM]BILLING CODE 4310-70-P


  • ONP Elwha River Inholders

    Olympic National Park Elwha River Inholders that hold out…

    AND,  THE  133  ELWHA PARK RECREATIONAL INHOLDERS  CAMPSITES THAT WERE WASHED OUT.

    AND SOLD OUT AS WILLING SELLERS.

    The full list of  133 names and dates are below

    There are many tragic stories of private property owners who have lost their private property to the National Park thugs.  Strangely these tales seldom see the light of day.

    SOMETHINGS HAPPEN THAT MUST BE DOCUMENTED, TO BE REMEMBERED

    On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 11:33 AM, pearl hewett <phew@wavecable.com> wrote:

    Destroyed Inholder  Private Elwha Recreational Sites

    Frankie White Called me from Oregon yesterday. She owned one of the 134 INHOLDER private Elwha Recreational lots 25 years ago when it was destroyed by ONP. She called it the FLOOD.

    The NPS/ONP gave Frankie three choices on her private property.

    1. Sell you lot to us now for full appraised value.
    2. Sell it to us now, use it for 5 years and we will give you 1/2 of the appraised value.
    3. DO NOTHING and we will take it by immanent domain.

    The White family had enjoyed the ONP private Inholder campsite for 14 years.

    My Dad, George C. Rains Sr. told her not to sell, that the ONP could not take it.

    Their family did not have money to fight. They did not know HOW to fight the ONP.

    They were afraid, they didn’t know what to do, and they sold their site to ONP.

    Frankie said, “I cried and cried, BUT THE ONP LEFT US NO CHOICE, so we sold it to them”

    ———————————————————-

    SOMETHINGS HAPPEN THAT MUST BE DOCUMENTED, TO BE REMEMBERED

    excerpt from

    [PDF]Conspiracy Exposed – Citizen Review Online

    www.citizenreviewonline.org/2011/Jul/George_Rains_Statements.pdf
    ————————————————————–

    Jack Del Gussi, John H. Lewis and I created the finest recreational campground facilities the Elwha River has ever known. We subdivided and developed campsites with underground electric power, water system and good roads and restrooms.

    In the course of our development I noticed a small breach through a narrow strip of land on the south of the big island which is owned by the park. I could foresee a lot of damage if something was not done to protect our property below and the Olympic Hot Springs Road.

    I contacted Del Hur Industries to get an estimate on what it would cost to plug the breach and put a small rock dike to prevent further damage to our property and the road.

    After getting an estimate I contacted the park people and they would do nothing to help remedy the situation. I also offered to provide free of cost all rip rap from our rock quarry on Little River.

    The problem was ignored. Finally sometime later the river came up high enlarging the breach, washing out a section of the Olympic Hot Springs Road and cut a channel through our development and took out our bridge……

    To this day they have done nothing to remedy the threat and a good portion of our property was destroyed through their sheer negligence. The National Park has no respect  for private property rights and ownership.

    ———————————————-

    MAR 29, 2017  To this day they have done nothing to remedy the threat to the Olympic Hot Spring Road, our access to our inholder property is gone and a good portion of our property is still being destroyed through their sheer negligence. The National Park has no respect  for private property rights and ownership.

    ——————————————–

    Destroyed Inholder  Private Elwha Recreational Sites

    There are many tragic stories of private property owners who have lost their private property to the National Park thugs.  Strangely these tales seldom see the light of day.

    WAS A MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY “A WILLING SELLER”  LIKE FRANKIE WHITE, TO THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK ?

    INHOLDERS ELWHA PARK RECREATIONAL CAMPSITES
    Hand written sales by George C. Rains Sr.

    Dated Sept. 22, 1970

    Hand written income by George C. Rains Sr.

    ending Dec. 1973

    TOTAL CAMPSITES (133) Documented
    OLYMPIC HOT SPRINGS ROAD CLALLAM COUNTY WA
    NUMBER OF CAMPSITES SITES DESTROYED BY OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK?
    NUMBER OF DESTROYED SITES PURCHASED BY OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK?
    OWNER PURCHASE PRICE
    1 Donald Salonen $2,500.00
    2 Peters, Jones and Salonen $2,500.00
    3 Peters and Jones $2,500.00
    4 McGinnis $2,500.00
    5 Mahoney $2,500.00
    6 Woodley $2,500.00
    7 Wenko $2,500.00
    8 James Arnold $2,500.00
    9 Cedon and Koski $2,500.00
    10 Louise Colby $2,500.00
    11 Adeline Knopman $2,500.00
    12 Uklenbott $2,500.00
    13 Donald Bray $2,500.00
    14 Adams $2,500.00
    15 Ainsworth $2,500.00
    16 Correia $2,500.00
    17 McDonald $2,500.00
    18 Gilbert Spenser $2,500.00
    19 McEachern $2,500.00
    20 Hutchinson $2,500.00
    21 Abbot $2,500.00
    22 Purvis $2,000.00
    23 McDonald $2,000.00
    24 Rylandar $2,500.00
    25 Rylandar $2,500.00
    26 Haggerty $2,500.00
    27 Croven- Byers $2,500.00
    28 Byers $2,500.00
    29 Karl Gustfason $2,500.00
    30 Anton $2,500.00
    31 Mitchel $2,500.00
    32 Gregon $2,500.00
    33 Knotek $2,500.00
    34 Paulis $2,500.00
    35 Inglin and Miemyick $2,500.00
    36 Stiles $2,500.00
    37 George Rains Jr. $2,500.00
    38 rest room priceless
    39 restroom priceless
    40 Corbin Cook $2,500.00
    41 Wheeler $2,500.00
    42 Scanano $3,200.00
    43 Cargo $3,200.00
    44 Yeaw $3,200.00
    45 Loopt and Lyman $2,500.00
    46 Loopt and Lyman $2,500.00
    47 Taylor $2,500.00
    48 Scoles $2,500.00
    49 Thocker $2,500.00
    50 Hansen $2,500.00
    51 Hansen $2,500.00
    52 Buchnell $2,500.00
    53 Robert Wry $2,500.00
    54 Larsen $2,500.00
    55 Tony Masi $2,500.00
    56 Glidden $2,500.00
    57 Stefono $2,500.00
    58 Johnny Key $2,500.00
    59 Lars gustofson $2,500.00
    60 Locks Louchs $2,500.00
    61 Louchs $2,500.00
    62 Reidel $2,500.00
    63 George Rains Jr. $2,500.00
    64 Don Kono $2,500.00
    65 George Rains Sr. $2,500.00
    66 Christanson $2,500.00
    67 Lee York $2,000.00
    68 George Rains Sr $2,500.00
    69 Don Kono $2,500.00
    70 Donald Arnold $2,500.00
    71 Creten $2,500.00
    72 Harry Arnold $2,500.00
    73 Nona Rains Preston $2,500.00
    74 Grauberger $2,000.00
    75 Grauberger-George Stevens $2,000.00
    76 Nona Rains Preston $2,500.00
    77 Libby $2,000.00
    78 Christensen $2,000.00
    79 Burchnell $2,000.00
    80 Owens $2,500.00
    81 Owens $2,500.00
    82 Owens $2,500.00
    83 Waldron $2,500.00
    84 30 foot road $2,500.00
    85 23-7 and 8 $2,800.00
    ADDITIONAL SALES 1970-1973
    PAYMENTS MADE BY
    86 Chester Blevins
    87 Clarence Colby
    88 Micheal Sanders
    89 Howell
    90 Klahn
    91 Wagstaff
    92 Joe Chase
    93 Donald Brady
    94 Glen Larson
    95 Micheal Sconogo
    96 Warren Schrader
    97 Barrow Sahor
    98 Nesbit
    99 Herbert Sahor
    100 Leonard Schroeder
    101 Jack Clark
    102 Mary Knapman
    103 Austin Glidden
    104 Dorothy Wheeler
    105 Joseph Mahoney
    106 William Bucknell
    107 Leonard McDaniel
    108 Wallace Adams
    109 Dom Solomen
    110 Max Ainsworth
    111 Robert McGinnis
    112 Earl Blevines
    113 Glen Waldron
    114 Elmer Wenko
    115 Donald Reidel
    116 Norman Taylor
    117 Gilbert Spencer
    118 Bill Preston
    119 Fred Correai
    120 Bert Wall
    121 Bertha Knotek
    122 Kenneth Owens
    123 Wallace Louchs (1)
    124 Wallace Louchs (2)
    125 Russel Stark
    126 Peter Lucal
    127 Peter Busch
    128 L. Durfraine
    129 Donald Bray
    130 James Howell
    131 Landoher
    132 James Klohn
    133 Michael Gort
    134 Tom Tinklham
    135 Bert Reid

  • Trump Picks Ryan Zinke to Head the DOI?

    Yep, Trump Picked Ryan Zinke to Head the DOI

    ZINKI’S  IDEA OF HIS DUTY AS THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AS  SECRETARY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A BROAD CONSENSUS ON WHAT WE’RE DOING

    ZINKE IS A RELATIVE POLITICAL NEWCOMER IN WASHINGTON AND TO POLITICS GENERALLY. DURING HIS SHORT TENURE AS A STATE LAWMAKER IN MONTANA, HE DEVELOPED A REPUTATION AS A “MODERATE” ON SOME ISSUES.

    ODDLY ENOUGH, AS A POLITICAL NEWCOMER, ZINKE HAS AN EXTENSIVE VOCABULARY OF THE LIBERAL POLITICO ESTABLISHMENTS KEY BUZZ WORDS.

    ZINKI’S TOP PRIORITIES WOULD BE TO GIVE LOCAL LAND MANAGERS AND RANGERS MORE FLEXIBILITY IN LAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

    REALLY, START COOLING OFF TENSION OVER LAND USE

    AFTER ABOUT FOUR HOURS OF QUESTIONING  AND COMMENTS  DURING . REP. RYAN ZINKE CONFIRMATION HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE TUESDAY

    IT’S ALREADY CLEAR THERE COULD BE SOME FRICTION BETWEEN AN INTERIOR SECRETARY ZINKE AND SOME REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO SPENDING.

    AND REALLY, ZINKE  PROMISES TO BRING A TEDDY ROOSEVELT-STYLE APPROACH TO MANAGING FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS?

    ZINKE  WENT ON TO SAY THAT HE THOUGHT THE COUNTRY HAS BENEFITED GREATLY FROM A LOT OF NATIONAL MONUMENT DESIGNATIONS, INCLUDING IN HIS HOME STATE OF MONTANA.

    ZINKE HINTED AT THE HEARING THAT ONE PRIORITY IN AN EXPECTED TRUMP-BACKED INFRASTRUCTURE BILL WILL BE TO ADDRESS A $12 BILLION BACKLOG IN MAINTENANCE AT NATIONAL PARKS.

    ZINKE HINTED? THAT  $12,000,000,000.00 BILLION DOLLAR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS) BACKLOG FOR MAINTENANCE WOULD BE  A PRIORITY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD HAVE A RED FLAG PRIORITY ON ANYTHING WITH  $12,000,000,000.00 BILLION DOLLAR AMOUNT ATTACHED TO IT.

    $12,000,000,000.00 BILLION DOLLARS IS THE LOW ESTIMATE FOR BUILDING THE WALL.

    MY CONSIDERED OPINION IS THAT RYAN ZINKE WOULD SUCK AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.

    WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, NOT ONLY  DO I  QUESTION, I STRENOUSLY OBJECT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PICK REP. RYAN ZINKE, R-MONT TO HEAD THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (DOI)

    ———————————————————————————–

    This is the hierarchy of power that  President Trump would be giving to Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont. by appointment.

     A MAN WHO’S  IDEA OF HIS DUTY AS THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR SECRETARY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A BROAD CONSENSUS ON WHAT WE’RE DOING

      The Department of the Interior Organizational Chart

    This is the classification of things according to relative importance or inclusiveness.

    Interior Organizational Chart

    Interior Organization Chart

    Trump Pick To Head Interior Department Says Climate Change Is Not …

    www.npr.org/…/trumppick-to-head-interior-department-says-climate-change-is-not-a…

    Jan 17, 2017 – Why would President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the U.S. Department of Interior, Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont

    LOL  RYAN ZINKE,  SAYS “WE ALL LOVE OUR PUBLIC LANDS, AND THE DUTY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AS A SECRETARY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A BROAD CONSENSUS ON WHAT WE’RE DOING..

    Indeed, I would be speechless, if I did not have this website

    JUST SAYING. JUST ASKING? WHO IS THIS GUY?

     I’VE NEVER HEARD OF RYAN ZINKE. PERIOD WHO VETTED HIM?

    THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (DOI) IS A MESS, AND ITS AGENCIES ARE A MESS, LIKE THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS) AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) IS A BLOODY MESS,  THE DOI HAS MORE THAN CONTROL OF PUBLIC LAND, WITH A COMBINED CONTROL OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF ACRES OF PUBLIC LANDS, MOSTLY IN THE WEST.

    AS PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD SAY “WHAT A MESS”.

    THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (DOI) IS A MESS

    During the Obama administration, fights over control of federal land boiled over into armed standoffs led by rancher Cliven Bundy and his sons in Nevada and Oregon.

    And, During the Obama administration, fights over control of federal land boiled over again on January 2, 2016, armed militants seized the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County Oregon

    On January 26, 2016 Robert “LaVoy” Finicum,  was shot three times in the back by two OSP officers.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    IT’S ALREADY CLEAR THERE COULD BE SOME FRICTION BETWEEN AN INTERIOR SECRETARY ZINKE AND some Republicans in Congress especially when it comes to spending.

    Certainly, President Trump is aware of the abuse of power by Obama’s  appointed interior secretary of Department of the Interior (DOI)

    The abuse of power by the DOI has been historically documented, and was crystal clear to America’s taxpaying citizens and voters long before  Trump formally announced his candidacy on June 16, 2015.

    HISTORICALLY DOCUMENTED THE  DOI ABUSE OF POWER, UNDER THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT  (BLM) ” THE SAGEBRUSH REBELLION”  THAT STARTED IN 1970 AND THE BLM STANDOFF ARMED WITH THE BUNDY’S

    2014, ‘IF THINGS DON’T CHANGE, IT’S NOT LONG BEFORE SHOTS WILL BE FIRED,’ LYMAN SAID, JOINING OTHER CONSERVATIVE LAWMAKERS SUCH AS CHAFFETZ IN WARNING OF VIOLENCE

    IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DIDN’T REIN IN THE BLM.

    AND, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DID NOT REIN IN THE BLM.

    On January 26, 2016 Robert “LaVoy” Finicum,  was shot three times in the back by two OSP officers.

    Behind My Back | Shooting him three times in the back

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/03/09/4775/

    Mar 9, 2016 – Shooting him three times in the back. Shooting death of LaVoy Finicum justified, necessary, prosecutor says shows that the three fatal shots …

    ———————————————————————

    SO, Why did President Trump pick Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont to  head the U.S. Department of Interior? to clean up the huge mess?

    ———————————————————————————-

    MAY 4, 2014 The Department of the Interior(DOI)  

    Behind My Back | Dept. of Interior Deterioration

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/05/04/dept-of-interiordeterioration/

    MAY 4, 2014“We the people” don’t have to look very far down the US. Government chain of command to pin point the cause of THE DETERIORATION of the … DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    —————————————————————————–

    HISTORICALLY DOCUMENTED THE  DOI ABUSE OF POWER, UNDER THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT  (BLM) ” THE SAGEBRUSH REBELLION”  THAT STARTED IN 1970

    PATRIOTIC AMERICAN CITIZENS CALL THEM “LAND GRABS”

    THE SAGEBRUSH REBELLION was a movement during the 1970s and 1980s that sought major changes to federal land control, use and disposal policy in the American West where, in 13 western states, federal land holdings include between 20% and 85% of a state’s area.

    YEP, PATRIOTIC AMERICAN CITIZENS CALL THEM, DOI BLM “LAND GRABS” IT GOT SO WILD IT WAS NAMED THE WILD OLYMPIC SCAM, BY HOOK OR BY CROOKS OR BY OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS

    Obama signs executive order, bypasses Congress, and …

    https://investmentwatchblog.com/obamasignsexecutiveorderbypasses-…

    1 day ago – OBAMA SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER, BYPASSES CONGRESS, AND LEGALIZES ALL BLM LAND GRABS. … ORDER, BYPASS CONGRESS, AND DO A MASSIVE BLM LAND GRAB. … http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/22499-behind- …

    ———————————————————————————

    A sequel to a 1970s movement that sought a state takeover ( LAND GRABS) of federal public lands.

    Behind My Back | The Sagebrush Rebellion

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/04/14/the-sagebrushrebellion/

    Apr 14, 2014 – This 20th-century conflict, known as the Sagebrush Rebellion, pits ranchers, loggers, miners and others against Washington bureaucrats in a …

    ——————————————————————————————

    THE BLM LAND GRAB

    In May 2014, in Texas, militias and their allies came to protest a BLM survey of more than 90,000 acres along the Red River, fearing the federal government was planning a land grab.”

    ‘If things don’t change, it’s not long before shots will be fired,’ Lyman said, joining other conservative lawmakers such as Chaffetz in warning of violence if the federal government didn’t rein in the BLM.

    ‘We can avoid it. But it’s not going to be by the people changing their attitudes and accepting more intrusion into their lives. IT’S GOING TO BE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGING PEOPLE’S FREEDOM.’‘It is impossible to overstate the importance of the victory won in the desert today, “The feds were routed—routed. There is no word that applies. Courage is contagious, defiance is contagious, victory is contagious. Yet the war is not over.’”

    JAN 30, 2017 WHILE THE STANDOFF AT THE BUNDY RANCH IN CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, HAS FADED AND THE SHOOTING DEATH OF LAVOY FINICUM HAS FADED FROM THE  LIBERAL  PUBLIC NEWS  MEDIA HEADLINES.

    DONALD J. TRUMP IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    Update  Jan 29, 2017 Robert “LaVoy” Finicum

    (GO TO THE ARTICLE LINK HERE)

    http://redoubtnews.com/2017/01/29/meeting-never-happened-john-day/

    Their intent is to meet President Donald Trump and present him with a letter requesting the pardon of local ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond.

    ———————————————————————————-

    BLM Bureau of Land Mismanagement

    Posted on February 29, 2016 9:33 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    February 26, 2016 Toni Webb’s  story is here… OREGON CANDIDATE EXPOSES SOCIAL, ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE CAUSED BY FEDERAL CONTROL IN JOSEPHINE COUNTY

    Liz and I both saw this … As the history of our three counties in three different states. Washington State, Oregon and Calif. Liz Bowen is from Siskiyou County, Calif. Pie N Politics Pearl Rains Hewett is from Clallam County WA

    ——————————————————————

    Jan 30, 2017 Updated to reflect…

    DONALD J. TRUMP IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    As, President of the United States, Trump shall seriously affect the transfer of ownership and return control of public lands back to western states, like Oregon, as critical to our survival.

    ——————————————————————————

    Trump Jr Human Toll Issues – WA DC Edicts

    Posted on June 11, 2016 9:18 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    Donald Trump Jr has been informed of the issues.

    Toni Webb’s  issues are…  THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE CAUSED BY FEDERAL CONTROL IN JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON

    ————————————————————

    February 13, 2016

    Toni Webb meets with Donald Trump Jr to discuss Timber Issues and Land Ownership.

    The bottom line from Toni…

    Jan 30, 2017 Updated to reflect…

    Donald Trump Jr was informed of the issues.

    ————————————————————————

    DONALD J. TRUMP IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    I have no doubt President Donald Trump will  transfer our lands from federal mismanagement. He has assured us, he will prevent further loss and reverse the losses that have plunged our county into poverty..

    INDEED,  PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP SHALL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, AND HELP US HELP OURSELVES.

    ———————————————————————————

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/17/510335071/trump-pick-to-head-interior-department-says-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax

    The bottom line

    MY CONSIDERED OPINION IS THAT RYAN ZINKE WOULD “SUCK” AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.

    WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, NOT ONLY  DO I  QUESTION, I STRENUOUSLY OBJECT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PICK REP. RYAN ZINKE, R-MONT TO HEAD THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (DOI) TO CLEAN UP THE HUGE (DOI) MESS


  • The Long Range Plan of NPS 1944-2016

    The Long Range Plan of NPS 1944-2016

    In a conversation at Sol Duc Hot Springs between the acting Olympic National Park Superintendent Preston Macy and my father George C. Rains Sr. in 1944.

    “George, I should not tell you this, but the long range plan of the National Park Service is to take the whole Olympic Peninsula over and put it in the Olympic National Park and move everyone off the Olympic Peninsula.”

     Behind My Back | Let Me Ask America a Question

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/04/26/letmeask-america-a-question/

    Apr 26, 2016 – The Wall Street Journal, Apr 14, 2016. Let Me Ask America a Question. HOW HAS THE ‘SYSTEM’ BEEN WORKING OUT FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY?

    ——————————————————————

    HOW HAS THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LONG RANGE PLAN ‘WILD WILDERNESS SYSTEM’ BEEN WORKING OUT FOR AMERICA?

    AND?  FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA?

    Question 4) Imagine you are visiting the Olympic National Park wilderness area 20 years from now. What conditions, experiences, visitor services, and facilities would you like to see?

     Above is  Question 4)  Olympic National Park – WILDERNESS Stewardship Plan – Public Scoping Comment Report

    PAGE ONE (1) SOME COMMENTS PERTAINED TO SUBJECT MATTER THAT IS “IRRELEVANT” TO WILDERNESS SCOPING FOR THE WSP/EIS AND WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED WITHIN THE PLAN.

    IRRELEVANT TOPICS INCLUDE WILD OLYMPICS AND WILD & SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATION

    AND MOST CERTAINLY IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS TO THE LONG RANGE PLANS 1944-2016 OF THE  NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND  OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK  SHALL ALWAYS BE TOTALLY IGNORED AND GO UNANSWERED

    THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LONG RANGE PLAN HAS REALLY GONE WILD.

    HOW WILD IS THE NPS LONG RANGE WILDERNESS  PLAN?  JUST LIKE A WILDFIRE, OUT OF CONTROL AND SPREADING FROM SEA TO SHINING SEA.

    SPREADING FROM WILD TO WILDERNESS TO WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

    LET’S SCOPE OUT AND DOCUMENT THE WILD, WILDERNESS, WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS  SIDE OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS)

    Olympic National Park – WILDERNESS Stewardship Plan – Public Scoping Comment Report

    PAGE ONE (1)

    SOME COMMENTS PERTAINED TO SUBJECT MATTER THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE SCOPING FOR THE WSP/EIS AND WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED WITHIN THE PLAN, but will be documented in the administrative record for this project.

    These IRRELEVANT topics include, but are not limited to, those related to Hurricane Ridge Road, Dosewallips Road (USFS), Deer Park Road, Waterhole Hut, Wild Olympics and Wild & Scenic River Designation, Lake Crescent, the Olympic Discovery Trail/Spruce Railroad Trail, non-wilderness facilities and activities at Sol Duc or in general, and public transit systems.

    Many commenters referred to the Topic Questions provided during scoping.

    1) What makes the Olympic National Park wilderness area special to you and why?

    2) When you visit the Olympic National Park wilderness area, what activities and experiences are most important to you?

    3) What do you think the issues are in the Olympic National Park wilderness area?

    4) Imagine you are visiting the Olympic National Park wilderness area 20 years from now. What conditions, experiences, visitor services, and facilities would you like to see?

    5) Please share any additional comments or suggestions.

    My irrelevant WILD scoping comments

    Public Scoping Comment Report – Planning, Environment and Public …

    are on page 12, 13, 14 and the top of page 15.

    Correspondence ID:

     

    30  Project:  29224  Document:  50933

     

    July 31, 2016 links have been added on the attachment

    Public Scoping Comment Report – Planning, Environment and Public …

    OCTOBER 2013 https://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=29224…Scoping…

    The Long Range WILD Plan of NPS 1944-2016 Exposed

    National Park Superintendent Preston Macy and my father George C. Rains Sr. in 1944.

    “George, I should not tell you this, but the long range plan of the National Park Service is to take the whole Olympic Peninsula over and put it in the Olympic National Park and move everyone off the Olympic Peninsula.”

    ———————————————————————

    10 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True – antimedia

    theantimedia.org/10-conspiracytheories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/

    May 18, 2015 – Now, let’s not go out there and try to prove conspiracy theories to be true. We wouldn’t want to expose the corruption of the state.

    ————————————————————

    Conspiracy Exposed – Citizen Review Online

    www.citizenreviewonline.org/2011/Jul/George_Rains_Statements.pdf

    The notarized document “Conspiracy Exposed” was written on Oct. 8,1992 by. George C. Rains Sr. when he was 77 years old. The referenced “Conspiracy” was …

    The Long Range Plan of the National Park Service 1944-2016  is Exposed

    ———————————————

    The Wild Olympics Scam

    www.wildolympicsscam.com/

    stop the wild olympics, agenda 21, land grabs; will devastate rural communities.

    Behind My Back | Wild Olympics is More than a Scam

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/07/24/wildolympics-is-more-than-a-scam/

    Jul 24, 2015 – THE WILD OLYMPICS PLAN is more than a fraud, a thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with …

    The bottom line….

    The Long Range Plan of the National Park Service 1944-2016  is Exposed